Print

Print


From: "Mark J. Reed"
>
> Also, it's not just  <ch>; Zamenhof proposed
> using <h> for all the circumflexes.  While <ch>
> for /tS/ and <sh> for /S/ are unobjectionable,
> it's hard to say the same about <gh> for /dZ/,
> <hh> for /x/, <jh> for /Z/.  And forget <uh>
> for /w/, although I think Zamenhof suggested
> just using <w> for that when ŭ wasn't available.


Z. recommended <u> for ŭ when ŭ wasn't
available.

Ph. D.